In this blog post, we will look at the various debates surrounding the theory of evolution and consider whether it is a scientific fact or just a coincidence.
The theory of evolution is a theory that most people living in the modern world have heard of at least once. Although more than 150 years have passed since the theory of evolution was announced, there are still controversies both large and small. In the larger framework, there is a conflict between people who believe in religion, especially those who support creationism, and those who support the theory of evolution, especially in the scientific community, and in the details, there is a conflict between various theories within the theory of evolution. However, the conflict between creationism and the theory of evolution is a field that is difficult to fully establish logically because it is a conflict between different approaches, namely science and religion, and it is not meaningful to compare the two. Therefore, in this article, I will look at various theories of the theory of evolution from a scientific perspective and present my own opinions.
In order to explore what is the orthodoxy in the theory of evolution, I will discuss the theory of evolution based on several major issues that are currently being debated. In this article, I will focus on the following topics: the timing of evolution, the unit of evolution, the role of genes, the view of adaptation, and the relationship between evolution and progress.
The theory of evolution is often understood as the survival of individuals better adapted to their environment through natural selection, and the traits are passed on to their offspring, resulting in evolution. However, there is much to think about when going deeper. First, let’s look at the timing of evolution. In this topic, the discontinuous equilibrium theory and the gradualism theory are in conflict. The discontinuous equilibrium theory explains that the evolution of species occurs through rapid differentiation in a specific short period of time. In species of a certain size or larger, even if a mutation occurs, it is difficult for a large change to occur due to gene transfer between groups, but if a small group is isolated, the effect of gene transfer is reduced, resulting in differentiation through mutation. On the other hand, gradualism sees continuous differentiation, whether slow or fast, rather than such rapid differentiation.
For example, let’s say that the Israelis traveled a distance of about 320 km over 40 years on their way back to Israel. According to the equilibrium theory, the Israelis would explain that they stayed in one place for most of the time and then suddenly traveled 320 km quickly. The gradualism theory would see them arriving in Israel after 40 years of moving in a certain direction little by little. The point to note in this analogy is that gradualism does not claim that it has moved in a constant direction for 40 years, but that it has moved in a direction over that period of time. Therefore, I am more sympathetic to gradualism. The 단속평형이론 claims that there was a sudden differentiation at a certain time, but from the standpoint of gradualism, this phenomenon can also be interpreted as part of a long-term change. Evolution continues, whether it is slow or fast. Therefore, I believe that gradualism, which can encompass other theories, is a more truthful explanation.
Next, let’s discuss the unit of evolution. On this topic, Dawkins supports the theory of gene selection, while Gould supports the theory of multilevel selection. Multilevel selection may seem like a superior theory to gene selection because it considers genes, individuals, and species as units of evolution, but this is not a simple matter. The issue is at what level natural selection actually works. After all, the characteristics of individuals and species are ultimately due to the phenotype of genes, so if individuals and species are units of natural selection, they are no different from those selected at the gene level. In his book “The Selfish Gene,” Dawkins wrote, “Genes indirectly control the behavior of living machines, like the programmers of a computer, without directly manipulating the puppets themselves.” “What genes can do is to design a survival machine in advance. After that, the survival machine operates independently, and the genes passively exist within it,” he explains. In other words, even if individuals and species are subjected to natural selection, this can be seen as a result of the influence of genes. From this perspective, I think the theory of gene selection is more convincing.
The following is a discussion of the role of genes, a key topic in the theory of evolution. If this part is clarified, questions about the timing of evolution, the unit of evolution, and the scope of adaptation (to what extent is it considered an adaptation) will also be resolved. However, the debate over the exact role of genes is still ongoing, and active research is being conducted. Dawkins believes that genes have a significant impact on the phenotype and are the main players in evolution, while Gould argues that not only genes but also the internal and external environments of organisms are important. Although studies comparing the effects of heredity and environment are continuing in twin studies, it is difficult to conclude that heredity and environment have an absolute advantage because the ratio of heredity and environment varies depending on the subject. For example, in a study of prosocial behavior, genetic factors increased by 32% to 61% with age, while the influence of the shared environment decreased by 47% to 3%. Therefore, I agree with Gould’s position that Dawkins’ gene-centric view may be significant for basic traits of organisms, but the influence of the environment cannot be ignored in the growth and survival of organisms.
Next, let’s look at the controversy over adaptation. One of the main driving forces of evolution is adaptation. This is because organisms that are well adapted to their environment survive better due to natural selection. However, it is not easy to determine how far adaptation applies. For example, consider the human ability to speak. Dawkins believes that language skills have developed as a result of the survival and adaptation of language-using organisms, while Gould believes that language has arisen as a by-product of the increased processing capacity of the human brain as it has grown. Of course, there is also the possibility that language is a product of adaptation in that there are genes that affect language. Another example is rape, which is seen by adaptationists as an adaptive behavior for the survival of men who have failed to reproduce, while by counter-adaptationists it is simply a byproduct of selfish behavior. In fact, the existence of insects called stink bugs, which have organs for rape, is a basis for adaptationists, while the fact that rape also occurs in women and young children of ages far removed from reproduction is a basis for counter-adaptationists. Additional research is needed to clarify the controversy over the scope of this adaptation, and a clear answer will only be possible after sufficient groundwork has been laid. Therefore, for now, rather than slandering each other, it is necessary to gradually clarify this through research.
Finally, I would like to conclude this article by talking about evolution and progress. The relationship between evolution and progress may vary depending on how “progress” is defined. Since the word “progress” itself contains a value judgment, it is inevitable to attribute value to the phenomenon of evolution. If progress is defined as an increase in biodiversity, then evolution can be seen as progress. However, it is questionable whether we can conclude that higher organisms such as multicellular organisms are progressive. As Gould explained through the “drunkard’s model,” the current direction of evolution is toward complex multicellular organisms because of the barrier of being a unicellular organism, and it cannot be concluded that it itself means progress. I believe that humanity should be careful when making value judgments about the phenomenon of evolution. While it is good to positively accept the emergence of humanity through evolution, the wrong value judgments can cause great repercussions, just as the early imperialists abused Darwin’s theory of evolution and claimed themselves to be superior.
So far, I have discussed the debate over the theory of evolution from the perspective of Darwin’s descendants, Dawkins and Gould, and presented my thoughts. Many things will be clarified and clarified through future research, but the debate will continue in the process. However, what I hope is that these debates will produce a beneficial competition effect, reducing errors in research and contributing to getting closer to the truth. The recent religious community’s evolution-creationism (evolutionary creationism) and the wasteful debate it has provoked with its condemnation of the scientific community are not conducive to progress. If we are true descendants of Darwin, we should explore the theory of evolution through scientific reasoning. Perhaps, one day, humanity may discover the absolute truth that some scientists dream of.
